Abstract
In some animals, males evolve exaggerated traits (e.g. the peacock's conspicuous tail and display) because of female preference. Recently Enquist and Arak presented a simple neural network model for a visual system in female birds that acquires the ability to discriminate males of the correct species from those of the wrong species by training. They reported that the trained networks were attracted by 'supernormal stimuli' where there was a greater response to an exaggerated form than to the images used as the correct species for training. They suggested that signal recognition mechanisms have an inevitable bias in response, which in turn causes selection on signal form. We here examine the Enquist and Arak model in detail. A three-layered neural network is used to represent the female's mate preference, which consists of 6 by 6 receptor cells arranged on a regular square lattice, ten hidden cells, and one output cell. Connection weights of the network were modified by a genetic algorithm, in which the female's fitness increases if she accepts a conspecific male but decreases if she accepts a male of a different species or a random image. We found that: (i) after the training period the evolved network was able to discriminate male images. Female preference evolves to favour unfamiliar patterns if they are similar to the images of the correct species (generalization); (ii) the speed and the final degree of learning depended critically on the choice of the random images that are rejected. The learning was much less successful if the random images were changed every generation than if 20 random images were fixed throughout the training period; (iii) the male of the same species used for training achieved the highest probability of being accepted by the trained network. Hence, contrary to Enquist and Arak, the evolved network was not attracted by supernormal stimuli.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (199.3 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Arak A., Enquist M. Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1995 Sep 29;349(1330):337–344. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1995.0122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cook N. D. Artefact or network evolution? Nature. 1995 Mar 23;374(6520):313–314. doi: 10.1038/374313a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dawkins M. S., Guilford T. An exaggerated preference for simple neural network models of signal evolution? Proc Biol Sci. 1995 Sep 22;261(1362):357–360. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1995.0159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Enquist M., Arak A. Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature. 1993 Feb 4;361(6411):446–448. doi: 10.1038/361446a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Enquist M., Arak A. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature. 1994 Nov 10;372(6502):169–172. doi: 10.1038/372169a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- GUTTMAN N., KALISH H. I. Discriminability and stimulus generalization. J Exp Psychol. 1956 Jan;51(1):79–88. doi: 10.1037/h0046219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol. 1990 Jun 21;144(4):517–546. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80088-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- HANSON H. M. Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization. J Exp Psychol. 1959 Nov;58:321–334. doi: 10.1037/h0042606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton W. D., Zuk M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science. 1982 Oct 22;218(4570):384–387. doi: 10.1126/science.7123238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature. 1995 Oct 5;377(6548):420–422. doi: 10.1038/377420a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Johnstone R. A. Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature. 1994 Nov 10;372(6502):172–175. doi: 10.1038/372172a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Jun;78(6):3721–3725. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.6.3721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zahavi A. The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol. 1977 Aug 7;67(3):603–605. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(77)90061-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]